Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Are you angry that it appears that small market teams may get the better end of this?


Rdskns2000

Recommended Posts

It appears to me and we will know more later that the small market teams will be getting what they want.

For all the talk of big market teams holding things up, it appears that small market teams where whining like babies. Saying they won't approve a deal unless their needs are taken care off.

They are getting their way with cash over cap. They probably get their way in some form of new revenue sharing.

I know this, the nfl better say that until a small market maximizes is revenue potential that can't get any revenue sharing beyond what they do now. So, Paul Brown Jr- sell the naming rights to that stadium. Same thing for Ralph Wilson. Okay get the city/county to sell the naming rights and split that with the team. Think they don't own their stadiums.

Also, raise the minimum cap level. Every year we see teams that never spend to the cap and some of these very same teams want extra revenue or to limit what spending teams can spend. Well, if you are going to do that; then you better be raising the minimum spending to say 80% the cap. I think that's something higher than what we have now.

So anyone getting angry over the fact it appears the small market teams maybe getting the better part of any new C.B.A.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the small market teams are being too shortsighted. All the teams under the cap are the awful, small market teams. If there's no CBA then hey they get a lot of old players who were cut. I have an assumption players will want one year deals. After this year they're done. There will be no way for them to compete for high level FA without a cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snyder and Jones (I hate to include him) are not stupid men they're going to get something from this deal.

The only thing they got was not having there teams loose value with a hold out, the Redskins and all the teams that have followings and that work to make themselves better and draw in interest get screwed with this deal, as the owners of team who don't really care will take the money that they earned, while only producing a medioaker product themselves.

The NFL is just strengthening the insentive for teams to save as much money they can, invest as little as posiable into there team, and make money off the work of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I'm mad... because it shouldn't be broken down by "small" or "large" market. Green Bay is in the smallest market, yet they are around the middle of the "revenue" list because they are able to sell themselves very well.

In fact, the "small market" owners may find that once they get a new Stadium and open up their good revenue streams, they will be fleeced by themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I am very angry w/ the bottom feeders. These small market teams are a-holes. I know Snyder is a smart business man, and he will get something good out of the agreement. perhaps we will see a Superbowl here. Who knows? Whatever the gains are that Snyder and the "larger teams" receive, i am sure those gains will be more than beneficial. The other posters are absolutely correct in stating that ht e cap minimum needs to be raised. Right now I believe it doesn't even surpass 60%. I am sure a higher minimum is something that the NFLPA would rally behind as well. That could be the best bargaining chip to use in dealing w/ the bottom feeders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they are going to have revenue sharing then it should be looked at like welfare is. In welfare if you have x amount of income you can not recieve get the welfare, so if the smaller market team isnt reinvesting its income then it shouldnt get the welfare.

Also there should be a rule that if a team is consistantly on the take the league should review their market, and decide whether a relocation would be in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's frustrating. I'll give Snyder his due - he paid a whopping amount for the pleasure of managing the Skins roster. He had to think fast on his feet to generate clever ways of making money to liquidate his debt. HE TOOK ON THE RISK. these small town losers/commnuities haven't taken on any of the risk but want to benefit. eff every one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is everyone keep trying to blame this on the small market teams?

They are the basement, dollar wise.

They're, by definition, small market. They can't just sell naming rights to stadiums they don't own and if they can, they are not in DC or New York.

Hell, the league can't keep a team in LA for crying out loud. It's not a spigot you just turn off and on at will.

By the logic being thrown around here, they should simply be able to walk out the door and rake in an extra $150 million, just like Snyder. If so, if they can match the big teams in small markets, then that means Snyder isn't doing all he could do.

The Union wants more money. They want teams to spend all they can on salaries. What good would it be to get the owners to commit any percentage of revenues, however defined, if a team isn't even spending the current limit and has no visible way to meet a new limit?

Snyder can raise an extra $10 million per year overnight by simply raising ticket prices $10 a seat. Teams that are not selling out, well, they can raise 'em all they want if no one is buying anyway.

The argument here is that the big money teams are due to keep whatever they can raise and they owe none of their success to the league as a whole. By that logic, Dan should be maximizing ticket prices and with his waiting list, he is obviously not ringing every last dollar out that he can, not even close, as many suggest the small market teams need to be doing.

Snyder is paying a head coach $5 mil. He's paying his top assistants $2 mil each. He's pushed the cap into oblivion, paying more actual cash out each year than the supposed limit due to the endless accounting gimmicks.

He's earned the most money and spent the most money the last what, 6 years running?

Here's something to consider; With all the survival of the fittest, every man for himself mentality going on around here, how would you like it if there were 32 Dan Snyder's owning teams? How about Bill Gates or Donald Trump entering the mix? How about some United Arab Emirates Sheik buying a team and hiring Joe Gibbs and his whole staff away for $10 or $20 million a year?

I'd suggest a bit of enjoying the position we are in; One of the BEST markets with THE best fans with one of the best owners and THE best coach.

Whatever deal Snyder has to give in to in terms of sharing, the next day he is STILL going to make more money than the little guys, STILL work harder and STILL go for the brass ring every day.

Careful for what you wish for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is everyone keep trying to blame this on the small market teams?

They are the basement, dollar wise.

They're, by definition, small market. They can't just sell naming rights to stadiums they don't own and if they can, they are not in DC or New York.

Hell, the league can't keep a team in LA for crying out loud. It's not a spigot you just turn off and on at will.

By the logic being thrown around here, they should simply be able to walk out the door and rake in an extra $150 million, just like Snyder. If so, if they can match the big teams in small markets, then that means Snyder isn't doing all he could do.

The Union wants more money. They want teams to spend all they can on salaries. What good would it be to get the owners to commit any percentage of revenues, however defined, if a team isn't even spending the current limit and has no visible way to meet a new limit?

Snyder can raise an extra $10 million per year overnight by simply raising ticket prices $10 a seat. Teams that are not selling out, well, they can raise 'em all they want if no one is buying anyway.

The argument here is that the big money teams are due to keep whatever they can raise and they owe none of their success to the league as a whole. By that logic, Dan should be maximizing ticket prices and with his waiting list, he is obviously not ringing every last dollar out that he can, not even close, as many suggest the small market teams need to be doing.

Snyder is paying a head coach $5 mil. He's paying his top assistants $2 mil each. He's pushed the cap into oblivion, paying more actual cash out each year than the supposed limit due to the endless accounting gimmicks.

He's earned the most money and spent the most money the last what, 6 years running?

Here's something to consider; With all the survival of the fittest, every man for himself mentality going on around here, how would you like it if there were 32 Dan Snyder's owning teams? How about Bill Gates or Donald Trump entering the mix? How about some United Arab Emirates Sheik buying a team and hiring Joe Gibbs and his whole staff away for $10 or $20 million a year?

I'd suggest a bit of enjoying the position we are in; One of the BEST markets with THE best fans with one of the best owners and THE best coach.

Whatever deal Snyder has to give in to in terms of sharing, the next day he is STILL going to make more money than the little guys, STILL work harder and STILL go for the brass ring every day.

Careful for what you wish for.

Exactly :cheers:

Are you going to blame other owners that have had teams for so long and are not as rich as some of the newer owners just because now you need to be almost a billionare to own a team???

If your revenue is 150 million and you have to give 60% of that to the players, that is a lot of money, and not much left for running the team and stadium. Synder and Jones make about $250 million and 60% of that is not as bad, plus all the other stuff they have on the side.

For the teams that city owns the stadium it is harder for them to generate any revenue from the stadium since it all goes back to the city.

You can not push out the small markets, know matter how much you do not like their situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Are you going to blame other owners that have had teams for so long and are not as rich as some of the newer owners just because now you need to be almost a billionare to own a team???

If your revenue is 150 million and you have to give 60% of that to the players, that is a lot of money, and not much left for running the team and stadium. Synder and Jones make about $250 million and 60% of that is not as bad, plus all the other stuff they have on the side.

For the teams that city owns the stadium it is harder for them to generate any revenue from the stadium since it all goes back to the city.

You can not push out the small markets, know matter how much you do not like their situation."

absolutely...in fact.....if Sun doesn't earn as much gross revenue as MS next year I think Gates and his stockholders should share their revenue with Scott and his stockholders just to brnig about IT parity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly :cheers:

Are you going to blame other owners that have had teams for so long and are not as rich as some of the newer owners just because now you need to be almost a billionare to own a team???

If your revenue is 150 million and you have to give 60% of that to the players, that is a lot of money, and not much left for running the team and stadium. Synder and Jones make about $250 million and 60% of that is not as bad, plus all the other stuff they have on the side.

For the teams that city owns the stadium it is harder for them to generate any revenue from the stadium since it all goes back to the city.

You can not push out the small markets, know matter how much you do not like their situation.

What you are forgetting and many others forget is that Snyder and some of these other owners have a huge amount of debt that many other teams do not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an article that was sent to me via email. I do not have a link since it was emailed to me. Enjoy!!!

Patriots Beat by Tom E. Curran: Playbook different for haves, have-nots

01:00 AM EST on Sunday, March 5, 2006

In his offices at publicly funded Paul Brown Stadium, Bengals owner Mike Brown complains he can't generate enough revenue in small-market Cincinnati to compete with teams that really rake it in, like the Patriots do in bucolic Foxboro.

Over in Buffalo, Bills owner Ralph Wilson has Brown's back. They can't make enough money from things like luxury suites in Ralph Wilson Stadium. Why can't teams like the Patriots kick back some of the dough they make in their markets?

Didn't the Patriots get millions when they sold the naming rights to Gillette Stadium? Can't they help out a small-market brother and share some of that money that has been unshared for 13 years?

The ever-rising salary cap cuts hard into the profits of the small-market teams that generate less local revenue than teams like the Patriots, Redskins or Cowboys. Let's get that unshared money shared so that everybody carries the same burden in meeting salary costs.

To which a high-revenue team like the Patriots says, "You're joking, right? We took over a team that was 28th out of 28 in revenues and worked our market until we got in the top-quarter.

Then when the team had some success, we worked three times as hard to build a stadium on our nickel -- not the public's.

Then we sold the daylights out of the place -- parking lots, entrances, ramps -- everything sponsored so that we could meet the mortgage and pocket some dough for the effort. And now you want us to share that money and you can't even get a name put on your stadium?"

This fissure between teams that make big money in their own markets (money they don't have to share) and the ones that do not is the root of the NFL's dizzying problems right now.

While all 32 owners are voting against the players getting the 60 percent of total football revenue in salary each year (the owners are offering 56.2 percent), not all of them have the same motivation for being against it.

For a team like the Pats, not giving more is based on principle. The cap's going to go up $20 million per team next season if they give the players 56.2 percent. Where do they get off asking for more?

For a team like the Bengals or Arizona Cardinals, the 56.2 percent (and accompanying $105-million cap number) represents a big chunk of their yearly revenue. The Pats take in almost $70 million more each year than the bottom-tier teams. They don't hurt like the Cardinals hurt when it comes time to meet payroll. The Cardinals don't hurt like the Patriots hurt when it comes time to pay the mortgage on their stadium.

Bill Polian, president of the Indianapolis Colts (a lower-revenue team) told USA Today in the summer of 2004, "We can't keep as many people as some teams can. The issue is cash. If you have cash that your stadium is generating every year, you can commit that to bonuses to retain or get players in the free agent market."

Polian said the above two months after the Colts gave Peyton Manning a $99.2-million deal with a $34-million signing bonus. Six months after saying that, Polian and the Colts gave Marvin Harrison a seven-year, $67-million deal with $23 million in guaranteed money. And last month, they signed Reggie Wayne to a six-year extension worth $40 million and $13.5 million in signing bonuses.

That's $70 million in signing bonuses to three players in less than two years. And they can't compete? That kind of disingenuousness doesn't help the cause of those teams one bit.

"I believe in revenue sharing and helping those teams who work hard in their markets," Robert Kraft told The Journal last spring. "There is discussion about whether higher-revenue teams should be taxed and that that money should be shared with lower-revenue teams.

"I don't believe that will fly. We have a lot of debt. We built a stadium on our own. I didn't take that risk to take a hunk off the top and give it to people who aren't working their markets hard.

"Every team has the ability to field a competitive team. Green Bay and Kansas City get the same revenue pool as the Patriots. Television represents 70 percent of all revenue. (Gate receipts) are shared.

"If people want to get their gates up, they need to work their market hard. In 1994, we were 28th out of 28 teams in total revenue. In four years we were in the first quartile. Anyone privileged to have an NFL team can have the same thing.

"There's billions in TV money distributed between them and some (franchises) sit back and don't work their market hard. I don't care about making them more profitable. I want them to field competitive teams."

Unfortunately for the NFL, the blanket has been pulled back on the league during this labor imbroglio. The things revealed aren't pretty.

The players are uninformed or uninterested in what their union heads are warring over. The union heads -- with NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw at the forefront -- are fighting with the owners over whether the players can have 60 percent of $6 billion because 56.2 percent just won't do.

The low-revenue owners are looking like a collection of lazy whiners in pinstriped suits and the high revenue owners -- the fattest of the fat cats -- actually come out looking OK in all this. They're just trying to do business as they were told business could be done. They put in the elbow grease to create these revenue streams where they were never seen. Instead of the other owners getting after it themselves, they want a handout.

They'll be back at it today, trying to hammer out a deal before it's too late. Meanwhile, it's already too late for some of these parties to save face.

tcurran@projo.com / (401) 277-7340

Team revenues

Here is how NFL teams ranked in revenue in 2004, the most recent year for which numbers are available. Figures are in millions:

1. Washington Redskins 287

2. New England Patriots 236

3. Dallas Cowboys 231

4. Philadelphia Eagles 216

5. Houston Texans 215

6. Cleveland Browns 203

7. Denver Broncos 202

8. Carolina Panthers 195

9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 195

10. Chicago Bears 193

11. Baltimore Ravens 192

12. Miami Dolphins 190

13. Green Bay Packers 189

14. Tennessee Titans 186

15. Detroit Lions 186

16. Seattle Seahawks 183

17. Pittsburgh Steelers 182

18. Kansas City Chiefs 181

19. St. Louis Rams 176

20. New York Giants 175

21. New Orleans Saints 175

22. Buffalo Bills 173

23. New York Jets 172

24. Cincinnati Bengals 171

25. San Francisco 49ers 171

26. Jacksonville Jaguars 169

27. Oakland Raiders 169

28. Atlanta Falcons 168

29. Indianapolis Colts 166

30. San Diego Chargers 165

31. Minnesota Vikings 164

32. Arizona Cardinals 153

-- SOURCE: Forbes Magazine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a bunch of losers. The average income in this country (let alone the median) is something like 35k. Did you ever wonder where all the poor people live? I got news for you - not in DC.

Go to Buffalo, or Cincy, or Cleveland, and that's where you'll find all the 20k-ers. And then tell me their owners are lazy bums for not maximizing their income like Danny-boy and his parking lots.

Simple fact: their income is maximized right now. Local industry is barely keeping afloat. They are not particularly interested in naming rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple fact: their income is maximized right now. Local industry is barely keeping afloat. They are not particularly interested in naming rights.

Horse Hockey!! The smaller markets are claiming that they want a cut of the bigger market teams' local revenue in the spirit of parity when in reality, they just want a form of corporate welfare so they can line their pockets.

When Snyder floated the idea of giving up 10% of his local revenue with the stipulation that it be used on player salary alone, the small markets balked at the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...